Post: Pres of ACOEM responds to WSJ Article
Posted by Sharon Kramer on 1/24/07
Very simple, as we have explained repeatedly and at length.
First, there was one lead author who was given the
assignment (the task was initiated by ACOEM, not the
author) and responsibility for putting together the draft
and that person did not have a conflict of interest.
Second, the statement is not the opinion of one person,
which is what is implied when there is a disclosure; it
went through a rigorous process of review and many
constructive modifications before the final statement.
The primary issue, in fact, is the validity of the
statement. Going round and round on this will not change
the weight of evidence, which does not favor the "toxic
Tee L. Guidotti
With all due respect you have not "explained it at length".
The ACOEM mold statement is NOT consistent with other
medical papers on the matter, including the Institute of
Medicine, Damp Indoor Spaces and Health Report (IOM
If there is nothing to this, then why did the story make
front page news of the Wall Street Journal? The answer is
because the reporter diligently researched the story for
over six months. The Wall Street Journal article is exactly
correct in it's reporting of the questionable genesis of
the ACOEM Mold Statement. ACOEM knowingly promoted a
litigation defense argument for the financial benefit of
some and at the expense of the sick.
The ACOEM makes a key finding that is not based upon any
accepted scientific methodology. The method used by ACOEM
to make this key finding is specifically pointed out within
the IOM Report as not accepted scientific methodology.
No other paper before or after the ACOEM mold statement
professes to be able to establish that humans could not be
exposed to enough mycotoxins within a damp indoor
environment to elicit symptoms of ill health. Only ACOEM
and other papers that cite ACOEM support this
unscientifically established finding.
Can you tell me which of the 83 references for this
purported review piece make the finding of implausibility
of human illness from indoor mycotoxin exposure "even in
the most vulnerable of subpopulations?".
No you cannot. None of the 83 references listed support
Can you name any scientific research paper that supports
the following calculations within the ACOEM Mold Statement?
"Airborne S. chartarum spore concentrations that would
deliver a comparable dose of spores can be estimated by
assuming that all inhaled spores are retained and using
standard default values for human subpopulations of
particular interest78 – very small infants,† school-age
children,†† and adults.††† The no-effect dose in rats (3 x
106 spores/kg) corresponds to continuous 24-hour exposure
to 2.1 x 106 spores/m3 for infants, 6.6 x 106 spores/m3 for
a school-age child, or 15.3 x 106 spores/m3 for an adult."
No. You cannot. There are none.
It is not now, nor has ever been accepted science to
extrapolate from high dose, acute rodent data and directly
correlate to indicate human mycotoxin exposure. NO ONE
but the ACOEM has professed to be able to accomplish this
feat of mathematical magic.
Isn't it true that Dr. Hardin and Dr. Kelman, who the ACOEM
specifically brought into the organization to author the
mold statement, simply applied math calculations to the
data from one rodent study to make the above calculations
and subsequent finding of the implausibility of human
illness from the matter?
While other papers indicate more research is need and that
not all is known, the ACOEM Mold Statement professes to
prove a negative...that serious illness from mold/mycotoxin
exposure is not plausible. (Or according to the authors
when on the witness stand, "could not be"). The body of
evidence is growing daily that humans are experiencing
serious illness from indoor mold/mycotoxin exposure. It is
a non-sequitur conclusion, not founded upon science, yet
used extensively within the courtroom to deny financial
liability for stakeholders of moldie buildings.
When shared with commerce, the authors of the ACOEM mold
statement say it translates in lay terminology to
mean, " “Thus the notion that ‘toxic mold’ is an insidious
secret ‘killer’ as so many media reports and trial lawyers
would claim is ‘Junk Science’ unsupported by actual
Is this really a statement the members of ACOEM may be
The amount of devastation through the known misinfomation,
being promoted as science, by an esteemed medical
association such as ACOEM has caused immeasurable misery to
the lives of many. Not only are the sick unable to obtain
viable medical treatment because their physicians are being
misinformed; but many of these people should not have
become sick in the first place. Your misinformation is
causing the unaware to be unnecessarily exposed to a
substance that can indeed cause serious illness. Your
misinformation then allows them to become sicker because it
keeps their physicians ignorant as to what to do when faced
with a mold patient.
But the point of the paper was to keep the physicians
uninformed. It is more difficult for the sick to prove
their illnesses, should they find themselves in litigation
with a stakeholder of a moldie building. It is an old
trick right out of the Big Tobacco science manual.
And you, Dr. Guidotti, are correct when you write, "The
primary issue, in fact, is the validity of the statement".
That is the primary issue and it is not a valid scientific
What ever happened to "Physician, first do no harm"?
My apologies for the directness of this email. I do not
know how else to say it. ACOEM is exposed on the front
page of the Wall Street Journal, and still you attempt to
Posts on this thread, including this one